US Copyright Proposals Tread on Rights?

Share

US Copyright Proposals Tread on Rights?

When it comes to protecting intellectual property in the digital age, the Clinton administration may be going too far.

"The question isn't whether to protect intellectual property or not - that's a given," said Adam Eisgrau, legislative counsel for the American Library Association, which is against the proposals the White House will submit at the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. "The question is how to protect it in a balanced way so that information continues to flow in a democracy. The American proposals, as they stand now, won't do this."

Bruce Lehman, the commissioner of Patents and Trademarks who is heading the US delegation, plans to present three proposals to the 160-nation gathering sometime this month. One proposal deals with the protection of artistic and literary works; the second focuses on protecting the producers and performers of sound recordings; the third deals with data bases.

"Generally speaking, guaranteeing protection to authors and copyright holders is 100 years old and has not been updated in 25 years," said Lisa Zgorski, press secretary for the Patent Office. "Some people think that information should be free, so they are leery of copyright protection on Internet, but unfortunately the creators invest a great deal of time and effort in the production of their works. They deserve protection under international law."

But critics contend that the proposals, as currently worded, would spawn some unintended consequences, tip the balance of copyright law from consumers to the entertainment industry, and avoid the sticky question of liability.

"The US proposals would outlaw the manufacture and distribution of not only equipment used by pirates but also of an enormous range of multi-purpose consumer electronic equipment, including PCs and VCRs," Eisgrau said. "A message is ephemeral. When it crosses the Internet, it actually hops through many different points, and at each point, there is a temporary reproduction made. Without these temporary reproductions, there would be no Internet email. The pending proposals would categorically grant copyright owners the same right of control over temporary reproductions that the owner has over tangible, fixed copies."

Supporters say critics are spamming without substance.

"If ratified, these proposals won't change US law one bit," said Neil Turkwitz, executive vice president of the Recording Industry Association of America, "although there are a number of changes that will take place in an international legal framework."

The RIAA estimates that the recording industry loses US$2 billion every year to illegal copying. And that's not counting network-based losses, which are impossible to calculate, Turkwitz said.

Online providers have joined with leading hardware and software providers to form The Adhoc Copyright Coalition. The coalition is worried that online providers will be held responsible for snooping on private communication in order to sniff out copyright infringements.

"There's been no consensus on online provider liability," said Russ Kennedy, manager of Government and Industry Relations for CompuServe. "It is unfortunate the US delegation is advocating an issue that is so contentious domestically. I guess there's been talk of building a bridge to next century, but it's not clear that these digital proposals won't burn these bridges to the 21st century."